star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Tristan Protzman for Hot Quarks 2022 submitted for review

From: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
To: Rosi Reed <rosijreed AT lehigh.edu>
Cc: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Tristan Protzman for Hot Quarks 2022 submitted for review
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:35:40 +0530

Hi Rosi,

Please find my reply inline.

On 2022-10-10 00:29, Rosi Reed wrote:

Hi Nihar,

A few comments-

My overall suggestion on Tristan's presentation is that due to

limited

time, let's only focus on the observation from this preliminary

results.

I agree that the time is limited so further analysis is not possible,
but I would disagree that it is too limited to think about the
interpretation of the result. I would even venture to say that most
of our thinking as a collaboration for what the results mean happen in
the week or two before a conference presentation because this is when
results are nailed down and people realize they need to say something
about them.

We don't have enough supporting results/study to draw any physics conclusion from these uncorrected preliminary results. These results were presented just 7-8 days before the conference and even we have not finished all systematic uncertainties and we did not have enough time to discuss and ask for further checks on it. I think we should not be hurry to make any physics conclusion keeping Hard probes2023 in mind.

Sorry, I still don't understand your argument here.
We don't have very good information about jet RAA/RCP in "isobar"
collision mainly kinematic range in pT etc. I know we have BES RCP

which

is in Au+Au collision.
Here the system size is smaller compared to Au+AU.
Unless we measure Jet RAA/RCP in Isobar we should not make any
conclusion/statement based on what we know from Au+Au measurement.

Actually - Tong is presenting the high pT hadron RAA in the isobars at
this very conference, which extends into the pT range of the jets. So
we know that the RAA will be ~0.6-0.7 for the kinematic range that
Tristan is reporting. An RAA of less than 1 indicates quenching, and
if there is quenching there must be a surface bias. So I don't think
it's fair to say that we don't have good information about the jet RAA
as high pT hadrons have always been considered a good proxy for jets.

Tong's RAA results is upto pT 10 GeV/c. But here we are discussing about hard-core jet v2 (R=0.2) above jet pT > 10 GeV/c. Hence need to be careful.

Yes, Isobars are smaller than Au+Au, but there is actually a fair
amount of data on even smaller systems out there. For example, we
know that the RAA < 1 for Cu+Cu published by STAR in
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3130.pdf [2]. There are a number of
results out of PHENIX as well. Just as Zr/Rb is ~1/2 of Au, Cu is
~1/2 of Zr/Rb.

I think that it is well established that there is quenching in these
smaller systems - what we're working out now is quantifying the
details.

We can't say anything more on "jet modification is path-length
dependent" in Isobar collisions; simply because in this measurement

we

have not done any jet modification study.

The jet v2 IS a jet modification study. If jets were not modified, the
v2 would be nearly zero.

For that we need to explicitly perform jet suppression study for this

system.

With Tong's charged hadron RAA, I think this has been explicitly
measured. However, I would push back here - the very first jet
quenching measurements were done long before we measured high pT RAA.
This is one analysis, and while I would agree that it is useful for a
full understanding of jet quenching in a given system, it's certainly
not required. For that matter, we only published our first jet RAA
paper last year.....

We need a detail study on jet RAA/RCP in Isobar collisions for good undersanding.

A further study is warranted to comment on path-length dependent jet

modification which we can discuss after HQ.

I completely disagree. We can make a statement that we see
path-length dependent modification based on this single measurement.
We can't say whether it is dominated by radiative or collisional
energy loss, whether MPI effects are larger than LPM effects, what the
surface bias is, etc. There's a lot we can't say - but this statement
is an incredibly low bar in terms of interpreting the data.

As I mentioned above, we have not done any Aj measurement in this

small

system Isobar collisions.
And we do not have enough time to have this discussion before HQ

which

we can discuss after the conf.
Using same process/cuts may not imply the jets we find are also

surfaced

biased in small system, for this concern we can discuss in details
later.

I agree we have not done AJ measurements. I disagree that the AJ
measurement is necessary to state anything about surface bias. AJ as
an observable was only invented in 2010 after the start of the LHC
runs simply because there was not sufficient theory to compare the new
LHC HI jet results to. The discussions over the surface bias of hard
probes date from at least the early 90s. So we're simply stating a
fact, especially in light of Tong's results, that quenching causes a
surface bias. Precisely how much it is, how it compares to Au+Au, and
so forth, we don't comment on and can not at this time.

Unless we have Aj measurement in Isobar collision, I will not say anything on it.
Aj in Au+Au we know, but we don't know what will be the result in Isobar (relatively smaller system).

Now, I completely agree that the selections from Au+Au may not map
directly onto the Isobars - there is a lot of post-HQ work to do here.
We should repeat Nick's very nice differential checks with the v2. I
think we can also at least for internal consumption create a raw Aj
measurement to compare to Kolja/Nick's results that can allow us to
make additional comments.

I really don't think we're pushing the boundaries on what can be said
here with this measurement, these are incredibly safe statements.

You might be right, but we should do the measurement and show the results first in order to make any statement.

Thank you
Nihar

Regards,
Rosi

On Sun, Oct 9, 2022 at 12:02 PM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:

Hello Rosi,

Thank you for your reply.
My overall suggestion on Tristan's presentation is that due to
limited
time, let's only focus on the observation from this preliminary
results.
for Any physics conclusion we need time to understand and discuss
for
that we don't have time now.

Please find my response inline.

On 2022-10-09 20:09, Rosi Reed wrote:

Hi Nihar,
Just a few comments here:

1. You don't need to put description of "ALCIE sys bands like

correlated

and uncorrelated etc" One green circle is enough to represent

ALICE

results.

I think it's better to keep their descriptions here - otherwise it

is

STAR telling ALICE what their data should look like. The

correlated

vs uncorrelated is important for making a statement about the
comparison, if everything was uncorrelated the significance of the
apparent agreement is much stronger, so I would be worried that by
changing their results we would be misleading our audience a

little on

this very interesting result.

That is fine and it is just PAs choice.

Can you please elaborate how we draw the conclusion of " jet
modification is path-length dependent" in Isobar ?
We don't have any hard-core jet RAA/RCP measurement in isobar. Do

we

have?

We don't have RAA/RCP, but I don't see why this is necessary for

the

statement, we know that jet RAA will < 1 in the isobar system due

to

other measurements made by STAR (and PHENIX). You could have a
path-length dependent modification that averages out to precisely

RAA

= 1, though that would be unlikely in a collision with a center of
mass energy greater than ~40 GeV judging by the RCP measurement

made

by Stephen from the BES data. With a signal at 3.5 sigma, we can
state that there is evidence for non-zero jet v2 at RHIC. There

must

be some geometrical physics process causing this - if there was

not,

then the v2 would be close to zero. In the paradigm of heavy ion
collisions we have a choice of initial state effects (so some

MPI),

pressure gradients and path-length dependent suppression (i.e LPM
effect). We know we can exclude the middle term due to the high

Q^2

and the QGP formation time. There is no evidence for the former

term

as of yet, so within the paradigm of jets in heavy ion collisions

the

latter is the assumption for the interpretation of the data that
remains. I certainly don't think we can overturn a decades long
paradigm on the basis of a single statistics hungry measurement.

Sorry, I still don't understand your argument here.
We don't have very good information about jet RAA/RCP in "isobar"
collision mainly kinematic range in pT etc. I know we have BES RCP
which
is in Au+Au collision.
Here the system size is smaller compared to Au+AU.
Unless we measure Jet RAA/RCP in Isobar we should not make any
conclusion/statement based on what we know from Au+Au measurement.

But it is fine for me with the statement "there is evidence for
non-zero
jet v2 at RHIC in Isobar collision."
We can't say anything more on "jet modification is path-length
dependent" in Isobar collisions; simply because in this measurement
we
have not done any jet modification study.
For that we need to explicitly perform jet suppression study for
this
system.

So I suggest to remove "Suggests that jet modification is
path-length
dependent, even in medium sized systems!" on slide#18.
and replacing this "there is evidence for non-zero jet v2 at RHIC
in
Isobar collision." is very important conclusion here which is
apparent
from the figure.
A further study is warranted to comment on path-length dependent jet

modification which we can discuss after HQ.

I would be careful on this statement, as I mentioned we have not

done

any dijet Aj study in Isobar to support of the surfaced bias jet
selection. It could be correct but we have not done any

measurement

so

we should abstain mentioning this.

I don't believe that we have to measure AJ to state this basic

fact of

nuclear physics. The surface bias of selecting hard fragmentation

has

been discussed since the earliest papers on jet quenching

(https://physics.fjfi.cvut.cz/files/predmety/02RQGP/zs1617/GyulassyPluemer.pdf

[1]

[1] for example), and has been mentioned many times by STAR itself

in

a variety of high pt and jet based measurements. In fact, not
mentioning it after STAR spent so much time discussing jet

geometry

evolution in the earlier AJ measurements would actually be akin to
walking back our earlier statements since we're using the same

process

in this measurement.

As I mentioned above, we have not done any Aj measurement in this
small
system Isobar collisions.
And we do not have enough time to have this discussion before HQ
which
we can discuss after the conf.
Using same process/cuts may not imply the jets we find are also
surfaced
biased in small system, for this concern we can discuss in details
later.

I have also made some comments on Tristan's talk that he'll follow

up

on, and the official practice of his talk before the council

member

will happen on Monday so there will be a little bit of tweaking,

even

after he submits a draft v5. One quick point on the

uncertainties,

Rongrong was quite correct in the meeting on Thursday that the
uncertainty on the tracking efficiency only plays a role in the
uncertainty if we're unfolding. So there are no further effects

that

will change the systematics for this non-unfolded measurement -

rather

we're waiting on this as a last cross-check.

Looking forward to seeing Tristan's updated version.

Cheers
Nihar

Cheers,
Rosi

On Sun, Oct 9, 2022 at 4:14 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Tristan,

Thank you for implementing my comments and your reply.
Please find my further comments and reply to your response.
All my comments on your recent version (v4).
Please don't remove your old version; that can be done after
finishing
our discussion otherwise it is difficult to follow the slide

numbers

with new version.

1) Have you updated your remaining sys uncertainty that we were
waiting
for?

2)Comments on Figures:
Slide18 fig:
1. You don't need to put description of "ALCIE sys bands like
correlated
and uncorrelated etc" One green circle is enough to represent

ALICE

results.
2. Please include instead STAR sys box's description in legend

Slide17 fig:
_ Can you include v2 value (with uncertainty) in this figure that
you
get from the fitting?

3) Additional comment:
I think EPD is used for the first time in jet v2 measurement.
It would be good to include EP resolution plot that you get from
this
measurement.
For that you can combine slide15-16 to make a story for EPD and

EP

calculation.

4) Slide18(in vesrion4):
"Suggests that jet modification is path-length dependent, even in
medium
sized systems!"
Can you please elaborate how we draw the conclusion of " jet
modification is path-length dependent" in Isobar ?
We don't have any hard-core jet RAA/RCP measurement in isobar. Do

we

have?

We can only say so far (from this preliminary study) what you

have

mentioned in conclusion slide19 (with slight modification

"hint…")

"Hint of non-zero v2^ch jet is observed in a medium sized system

"

Please bring this statement in slide18

5) Slide19(v4 version)
_"A very different system!" -> "A very different kinematic range

and

system size"
_"v2ch jet is observed despite the introduced surface bias" ->

"v2ch

jet
is observed despite the possible surface bias"
I would be careful on this statement, as I mentioned we have not
done
any dijet Aj study in Isobar to support of the surfaced bias jet
selection. It could be correct but we have not done any

measurement

so
we should abstain mentioning this.
If you want, then need to do Aj measurement for this hard core

jet

selection in Isobar.

_"Our picture of jet quenching is not complete - there is still

much

to
discover"
Sounds a vague statement. Please mention 1) what is not
completed
relating to jet quenching? 2) what do you think that needs to be
discovered? Please elaborate this.

Remaining reply can be found inline.

On 2022-10-09 07:56, Tristan Protzman via Star-hp-l wrote:

Hello Nihar,

A new draft has been uploaded to Drupal.

Note: it should be written as $p$+$p$ and $p$+Au, etc, which is
different from the guidance.

Fixed.

Slide:2
_Second bullet seems out of context here. Coupling is large at

low

Q^2

then why is it relevant for the QGP and your jet anisotropy
measurements? This part is not clear here.
It motivates the need for a perturbative object like jets to

probe

what we actually want to study, the QGP. Changed text to

clarify.

Still it is not clear and confusing for 1st and 3rd bullets.
If you want to motivate jet (which pQCD calculable) and this is

used

to
probe QGP (which is asymptotic region of coupling); then what is

the

point to mention "alpha_s ~ O(1) at low Q^2."
I would suggest to rephrase;
"Since running coupling is asymptotically small at high Q^2,

pQCD

calculable probes are used to study the QGP medium"
Then you don't need 3rd bullet.

_ Give reference to the running coupling plot. And you could

replace

with most updated version where LHC measurements (very highQ2

region)

are included if you want to start with it.
Changed.

__GIve a reference or credit for left cartoon._

Figure removed, I felt it did not add to the message.

Slide:4
_3rd bullet: "Leads to path length…" this is not the only

effect;

it
could be various other contributions like color factor, Temp of

QGP,

initial gluon density, etc. But you need to mention Your

motivation is

to study "path length dependence".
__ same comment for 4th bullet_
I have adjusted this section to clarify that the aspect of jet
modification I am trying to study is the path length dependent

nature

of jet energy loss

Slide4 (current v4)
_ "We are interested in understanding the path-length dependence

of

these processes" -> "We are interested in understanding the
path-length
dependence of jet quenching"

_"Both collisional and radiative" -> "Both collisional and

radiative

energy loss" or "Parton energy loss via both collisional and
radiative
processes"

_ 5th Bullet ("Both collisional and radiative") you need to

provide

reference to the theory calculation for this L/L^2 dependence.

These

are
model calculations.

Slide4 (current v4)
_"Both collisional and radiative" -> "Both collisional and

radiative

energy loss" or "Parton energy loss via both collisional and
radiative
processes"

Removed L/L^2 statements as I am not comparing to any models in

this

presentation

_ This slide only focus on jet and jet quenching, but it doesn't
motivate your measurement like why jet anisotropy measurement is
required? Need to include some text on it.
I suggest you need to motivate jet anisotropy before you go to

any

jet

analysis details like in Slide5 underlying event discussion

The way I have structured my talk is to first motivate that we

have

observed jet quenching. I am using the dijet analysis to this

end. I

then want to contrast that with azimuthal anisotropy, which is

not

a

dissimilar measurement in that it probes jet modification, but

it

does

so in a new way. Therefore, I think it makes sense to talk

about

jet

measurements and then the dijet measurement before introducing

the

idea of anisotropy and motivating how that can get us towards

the

missing path length dependence of a dijet analysis.

SLide:5
_Not clear, what is that right side plot? Is this data or MC
simulation.
What is pT, of track or jet? What is Delta phi?
I agree, this plot was not particularly clear. I have removed

it.

__"Soft processes produce a fluctuating background" what is

that_

_background? Is it track or _combinatoric_ jet background?_
I'm not quite sure I understand what you are asking, it is the

tracks

from soft processes which produce the combinatorial jet

background, so

I suppose both?

Then it would good to mention, "Soft processes produce a

fluctuating

uncorrelated background for jet measurement in heavy-ion

collisions"

Here "uncorrelated" is important.

Slide5 (current v4), right figure is from STAR data or any model?

No

description mentioned there.

__3rd _bulltet_ (Estimated…) it should _be sub-bullet_ of 2nd

bullet

(Soft_
_process…)_
Changed.
__ what is kT?_
The k_T jet finding algorithm, clarified.
__ Jet area -> Jet area(A)_

Changed.

Slide6:
_Not clear, what is that right side plot? Is this data or MC
simulation?
What is pT, eta, and phi?
This is the total track momentum for eta/phi bins for a

collision.

__"A jet finder… had scattering and other processes" ->" had
scattering_
_and combinatorial background in heavy-ion collisions"_
_2nd bullet is not required if you mention above.

_ _I have merged this with slide 5 and changed this wording

SLide:7
I would suggest to use jet pT as $p_{\rm T, jet}$ throughout

your

presentation.
Changed.
__Used in other STAR analysis -> Proved references_
__Provide _referecen_ to ALICE measurement_

Done.

Slide:8
_Move this slide or Isobar jet pT distribution after your

slide14

where
you discuss about Isobar dataset. It seems the left side plot

just

pop-up. This plot should be part of you results discussion even

if

it

is
a STAR performance plot.
Figure removed
__"Statistically unlikely for soft processes…" Please rephrase
this… not_
_clear._
Changed to clarify that it is unlikely for soft processes to

produce

high pt hadrons which look like jets
__"May bias jet selection towards surface" Not sure the

motivation

of_

_this bullet. _why it is_ important? You are not doing jet

RAA/RCP

study_
_and you do not study trigger jet v2 then why it is important if

this

jet_
_is trigger biased or not. These jets should be treated as

inclusive

_jet_._

Is it not important to understand the biases we introduce into

our

measurements? By requiring the high pT hadrons the selected

jets

are

biased towards the surface of the QGP. This is the motivation

for

one

of the items we would like to explore next in this analysis, the
variation of the hard core threshold.

Slide:9
This slide is not relevant. You could put in Backup. (A

distraction)

I disagree, the story I am hoping to tell with this talk is that

we

saw signs of jet quenching with measurements like dijet

imbalance,

but

that it doesn't tell the complete story. We can continue our
understanding of jet quenching from dijet measurements to jet v2
measurements.

slide8(in v4)
_ we are doing inclusive hard-core jet v2 measurement here. Is

not

it?
_I am not convinced to motivate with dijet measurement here. Are

we

going to do any dijet measurement in isobar?
_Selecting a hard-core jet may not imply you select surface

biased

jet.
For that you need to show the same dijet Aj measurement in isobar
like
in Au+Au. If you have any result to demonstrate that you are
selecting
surfaced bias jet in Isobar, please show those results.
I think we have not done that study.

Slide:10
_ 1st bullet: Why it is important for Dijet imbalance discussion

here?

You are doing inclusive jet v_n measurement. Not clear to me.

See above.

Please see above my concerns.

SLide12
_"A jet in plane interacts with less medium than one out of

plane"

->

"A
jet interacts less with medium in plan than out of plane"
Changed.
__"Since jet production is isotropic, differences in yields are

a

result_
_of medium interactions" Not sure, _what you_ want to say here?
Please_
reprhase_._
Changed.
__" like flow" Remove this._
I included this to help give context for the measurement to an
audience who may be familiar with flow studies, but not jet

anisotropy

studies. If you feel this is misleading I will remove it.
__ you do not discuss what is v_{2}^{jet} is?_
Changed equation to remove \Delta\phi -> \Psi_2 - \Phi_jet
__"Not a flow effect though!" Can you elaborate this?_

I am stating that although it may be described using the same
framework as flow measurements, jet v2 is a different process.

I would suggest to give a clear idea what could be that different
process, For example...?
Otherwise do not create unnecessary doubt or make statement just

for

a
buzz?

SLide13
_RHIC produces a different, cooler QGP -> "RHIC produces a

cooler

QGP

medium than the LHC"
Changed.
__"Down to 10 _GeV"_ -> But you are not going to show down to 10

GeV.

So_
_just remove this extra quantifier _subbullet. Main bullet is

fine.

I do show down to 10 Gev though, my first point is 10-12.5 GeV/c

jets.

Slide15:
- Jet trigger -> You don't use any jet trigger and BEMC info in

your

measurement. If yes, just remove.
I do use the barrel high tower trigger in my analysis, as

detailed

in

the preliminary figure request. I have clarified this as high

tower

trigger rather than jet trigger.
_- Right side STAR detector, please indicate where is TPC, BEMC,

EPD_

_- Mention kinematic acceptance of these detectors_

See updated slides, Yi mentioned this as well

Slide16:
_you did not discuss what is Delta_phi?
I did not, but I am not sure I need to on this slide. I will

discuss

it on the next slide.
__right side plot, _make title_/_lable_ of x-, y-axis bigger so

that

it will_
_be visible. And also legends _in side_ the plot._
Changed, made entire plot larger as well

Slide18
Move this slide after Slide15

Changed.

Slide19
_INside fig, mention "red line" is fit fun.
Added.
__ inside fig, p_T^reco -> p_{\rm T, jet}^{reco} ; 12.5 -> 12.5

GeV/c_

Changed.
__ you did not mention anywhere before what is "R"? And what jet

_R

you
are_ going to _do measurement_?_
It is labeled on the plot, and I will discuss it further on the
following slide.
__ what is v_{2}^ch? Need to mention _it charged_ jet v2. I

would

suggest_
to use $v_{2}^{\rm ch, jet}$; And the same about v_{2}^ch,abs

Changed.

Slide20:
Before slide20, you need to discuss different jet v2 (all, hard

core,

matched jet) and their spectra showing side-by-side

I'm not sure I understand why? I think that was a good check to

make

and certainly worth having in the backup, but the measurement

being

presented is jet v2 using the hard core matching criteria, the

need

for which is motivated earlier in the talk.

Slie21:
_ "Jet v2 is a exciting measurement for determining the

path-length

dependence of jet quenching" -> This statement is fine to

motivate.

But
for your conclusion this may not be relevant. Because we don't

have

jet
v2 measurement for different path length/system size with the

same

kinematic coverage. And you did not discuss what is the strategy

for

your measurement unless you plan to do the same in AU+AU.

_"Jets which are in plane interact with a different amount of

the

QGP

than those out of plane" Not sure how do you get this conclusion

from

your measurement.

I have updated my conclusions to better reflect the points I

wish

to

make and where I will go next with this analysis.

Thank you
Nihar

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 1:34 PM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>

wrote:

Dear Tristan,

Thanks a lot for the reply and the updated version.
They look very good to me.
Let's wait for your study and the decision on the preliminary
results!

Cheers,
Yi

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:26 AM Tristan Protzman

<tlp220 AT lehigh.edu>

wrote:

Hi Yi,

Thank you for the feedback! I have uploaded an updated version

and

addressed your comments below.

- p4: Are the sub-bullet for the 3rd bullet and the 4th bullet

the

same?

Yes, I have removed that redundancy.

- p6: toy mode --> toy model

Fixed.

- p9: Just for my own education, could you please tell me why

A_j

can be less than 0 (I am assuming pT^1 and pT^2 are leading and
subleading jet pT, respectively, is it correct)?

Yes, (pT^1, pT^2) is the (leading, subleading) jet pT. The red
points are the measurement of A_j using only hard cores. This

is

where leading and subleading are determined, thus no points

below

0.

However, after matching is done, leading and subleading are not
recalculate, so it is possible for the subleading hard core to

match

to a jet with more momentum than the leading hard core does,
resulting in negative A_j. There are a few ways this could

happen.

The subleading jet could contain a larger soft component than

the

leading jet, thus when added to the hard core the magnitudes

flip.

Additionally, because of the fluctuating background the leading

jet

could be over subtracted and the subleading jet under

subtracted,

again flipping the relative magnitude. This would not affect

the

hard core since background subtraction is not done on that
collection.

- p15: It would be good if you can provide more information for

the

subdetectors, for example eta and phi coverage...

I added more information about each system and labeled the

picture.

- p18: Jet v2 not feasible --> Jet v2 is not feasible

Changed to Jet v2 was not feasible

Cheers,
Tristan

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 1:59 PM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>

wrote:

Hi Tristan,

Thanks a lot for the nice slide. I have some

suggestions/comments

for your consideration.
- p4: Are the sub-bullet for the 3rd bullet and the 4th bullet

the

same?
- p6: toy mode --> toy model
- p8: Title: Hardcore --> Hard core
- p9: Just for my own education, could you please tell me why

A_j

can be less than 0 (I am assuming pT^1 and pT^2 are leading and
subleading jet pT, respectively, is it correct)?
- p15: It would be good if you can provide more information for

the

subdetectors, for example eta and phi coverage...
- p18: Jet v2 not feasible --> Jet v2 is not feasible
- Since we are not settled with your preliminary results yet, I
will comment on p20 and p21 later. :-)

Cheers,
Yi

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 12:36 AM Tristan Protzman via Star-hp-l
<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi All,

I submitted this material for review last week, but it seems to

have

been lost somehow, so I am resending it.

Cheers,
Tristan

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:33 PM webmaster--- via Star-hp-l
<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,

Tristan Protzman (tlp220 AT lehigh.edu) has submitted a material

for

a

review,
please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/61264

Deadline: 2022-10-11
---
If you have any problems with the review process, please

contact

webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

--

Rosi Reed
RHIC/AGS UEC member
Associate Professor, Physics Department
Lehigh University
(610)758-3907
16 Memorial Drive East Office 406
Bethlehem, PA 18015
she/her/hers

Links:
------
[1]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://physics.fjfi.cvut.cz/files/predmety/02RQGP/zs1617/GyulassyPluemer.pdf__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Ez8frSqNJbBBgywunqqEJilI-3bnKgpyx5zAD_HBfZVBjsvOPutfr1MohqqCsvBHTEzGzKHaD71BzzjqNgYSMSxtUg0$

--

Rosi Reed
RHIC/AGS UEC member
Associate Professor, Physics Department
Lehigh University
(610)758-3907
16 Memorial Drive East Office 406
Bethlehem, PA 18015
she/her/hers

Links:
------
[1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://physics.fjfi.cvut.cz/files/predmety/02RQGP/zs1617/GyulassyPluemer.pdf__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!DAjTvNqBnrDN15MQ9KFyfzsr7tyaPU93FxKstErQdeUayvJRIOKJqvPWleLmN7577Py7tYbZP1_UGMeIwR6tJr93nKs$
[2] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3130.pdf__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!DAjTvNqBnrDN15MQ9KFyfzsr7tyaPU93FxKstErQdeUayvJRIOKJqvPWleLmN7577Py7tYbZP1_UGMeIwR6tF1O-DZQ$

Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Tristan Protzman for Hot Quarks 2022 submitted for review , (continued)